| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| CNL-605 |
CNL-605-O500 |
CNL-605 Benchmark – Treating Schizophrenia (Obj. 5.1) |
110.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) |
Satisfactory (79.00%) |
Good (87.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
70.0% |
| Schizophrenia Symptoms |
20.0% |
Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is not present or discernable to the reader. |
Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is complete and accurate. |
Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is thorough and well-reasoned. |
Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of the symptoms. |
| Possible Secondary Diagnoses |
20.0% |
Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is not present or not discernible to the reader. |
Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is complete and accurate. |
Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is thorough and well-reasoned. |
Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of how a client may be misdiagnosed. |
| Theories for Treating Ted's Schizophrenia |
10.0% |
Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is not present or not discernible to the reader. |
Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is complete and accurate. |
Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is thorough and well-reasoned. |
Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of the importance of evaluating theories for treating a client's symptoms. |
| Treatment Goals and Objectives (C1.4) |
20.0% |
Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is not present or not discernible to the reader. |
Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is complete and accurate. |
Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is thorough and well-reasoned. |
Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of treatment options for addressing all of a client's symptoms during the treatment process. |
| Organization, Effectiveness, and Format |
30.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
7.0% |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
8.0% |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
5.0% |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
5.0% |
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
5.0% |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
FAST ANSWERS_PHD
Topic6.xlsx
